Clicky

Liberal Stupid-Ass Comment

Wednesday, July 25, 2012

I didn't even read about this until reading the latest spectacular article by Lloyd Marcus at AT. Marcus explains:

Obama has unleashed an army of really smart-sounding con artists to intimidate into silence anyone daring to disagree with our imperial dictator and to lay a white-guilt-trip on voters.

A prime example of an Obama con artist is black former NY Times writer and NBC reporter Bob Herbert, who recently made the most absurd and offensive statement. Herbert said,

"A majority of whites have never favored equal rights in this country. Never, ever, ever, ever. It's never even been close -- it is a fantasy to talk about the idea of a majority of whites supporting the rights of blacks."

Herbert also said most whites voted for McCain/Palin. Herbert further implied that all white votes against Obama were racially motivated.

Hmm, interesting theory. Maybe if you look at the history of the party you always vote for, Bob, you'd be right.

But such an offensive and asisnine statement really doesn't even warrant the dignity of a retort. It's just another of a never-ending list of liberal stupid-ass comments.

Sunday, November 13, 2011

Who's Bill Press, you ask? Don't know. Don't care. Some lefty who used to be on CNN and has his own show somewhere. On his Friday broadcast he actually compared Herman Cain to Jerry Sandusky [h/t Brian Maloney at Radio Equalizer]:

What's the difference, really? There's no difference, really. I mean, okay, we have maybe sexual assault in the case of Sandusky, but let me tell you something, assuming, and if what Sharon Bialek says is correct, that's a lot more than sexual harassment on Herman Cain's part. That's sexual assault on his part. I think any lawyer would tell you that. So I just get sick of these right-wingers trying to defend this guy when five different women come forward. Five different women come forward! Same story. You're just believe him?

So with nothing but hearsay from two very suspicious and opportunistic women, Press made this offensively inapt comparison.

Saturday, October 01, 2011

Gee, the Hollywood A-(hole) List gets longer and longer and longer. Last Saturday, after The Herminator trounced in the Florida straw poll, pundit George Will said it would make liberals' heads explode. And indeed it has.

First, actor Morgan Freeman -- who, after playing roles like "Crazy" Joe Clark in the movie Lean On Me and other movies that send a wholly Republican message -- bashed the Tea Party as a bunch of racists.

At least the DBF media reported that comment. But there was apparently a Tweet by black actor D.L. Hughley that has stayed under the media radar for an entire week already.

Black comedian D.L. Hughley is at it again, making racist and incendiary comments about Republicans. Apparently, Herman Cain’s victory in the GOP Florida straw poll was too much for the liberal-minded Hughley to bear. On September 27, Hughley launched into a stream of demeaning, racially charged tweets about Cain on his Twitter account @RealDLHughley, which his loyal followers responded to in kind. You may remember Hughley’s fleeting CNN talk show was cancelled in 2009 because he said during an interview with former RNC Chairman Michael Steele “the Republican National Convention literally looks like Nazi Germany.”

Literally, Mr. Hughley? They were actually wearing Nazi uniforms and swastika armbands? Were theyliterally marching in goose step and burning books and rounding up Jews and throwing them into cattle cars, Mr. Hughley?

No, of course not. The only thing that made the RNC Convention "literally look like Nazi Germany" as that the attendees were predominantly (but not all) white. For some reason this has become a sin to the mentally deranged left. So, to Dem-wits like Hughley, being white = being a Nazi. He's judging a group of people purely by their skin color. Don't know about you, but that sounds pretty freaking racist to me!

Wright goes on:

Hughley’s tirade against Cain may have gone unnoticed were it not for @blackrepublican tweeting about Hughley’s incendiary commentary. “Herman Cain won the Florida straw poll by a lot! I loved Herman Cain when he played Mr. Gaines on a different World,” Hughley tweeted. This prompted other tweets by Hughley and his followers that implied Cain was an Uncle Tom and not REALLY black because he is a conservative who doesn’t choose to believe in Democrat plantation policies that keep blacks economically oppressed.

Apparently, Hughley was too absorbed in his racist Twitter banter to notice a recent Rasmussen poll that found Cain trailing Obama by just 5% in a hypothetical match-up.

This enticed others to compare Cain to the “original Cream of Wheat,” “Stepin Fetchit” and the “butler in Gone with the Wind” — all of which conjure up demeaning, racist caricatures used during the pre- and post-Civil War era to describe the “dutiful slave.”

It’s shocking that, in the 21st century, blacks would so viciously attack a black man because he didn’t agree with their politics. Martin Luther King Jr. would be horrified because this isn’t the freedom he fought and died for.

Even more surprising is the fact that Hughley hasn’t removed or denounced any of the tweets, particularly the one which makes an offensive reference to Sarah Palin.

Most shocking of all, the liberal media has completely ignored the story. If the shoes were reversed and a white conservative comedian or radio host like Rush Limbaugh authored and incited such offensive commentary about Barack Obama or a black Democrat, the left-wing news media and politicians would be outraged. They’d demand apologies, firings and boycotts. But when a black comedian says racist things about a black Republican, he gets a free pass.

Indeed. In fact, in order to brand Rush and other conservatives as racist, the left has needed to make up racist quotes out of whole cloth and propagate them as fact. That's how morally corrupt the Democrat left has become.

And now, as we are seeing, being black does not protect Herman Cain from racist and offensive comments. Just ask Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas.

While the liberal establishment is busy protecting the double standard, their policies are doing nothing to create jobs for the 16.7% of blacks and 45.6% of black teens who are unemployed. Instead of mocking black conservatives, maybe it’s time for black liberals to turn their attention to some new ideas. After all, the Democrat hand of government isn’t helping blacks rise up. It’s only keeping them enslaved and dependent on a promise that is never realized.

Amen, sister.

I hope Herman Cain gets the GOP nomination. And I hope more black Americans wake up and realize the shackles their Democrat massas have kept them locked up in all these years.

Friday, September 16, 2011

Well, not in so many words. But he might as well have, cuz that's what he meant. Upset by the stunning loss of his Dem boy in NY-9 to Republican Bob Turner, here's what that sleazeball Waxman (D-Lala Land) had to say about his fellow Jews [h/t Red State]:

There are Jews who are trending toward the Republican Party, some of it because of their misunderstanding of Obama’s policies in the Middle East, and some of it, quite frankly, for economic reasons. They feel they want to protect their wealth, which is why a lot of well-off voters vote for Republicans.”

Get it? So not only did NY-9's Jews vote for the Republican because they're stupid (i.e., they don't understand Obama's Israel policy) but because they're selfish and greedy, ostensibly for wanting to “protect their wealth.”

Actually, Waxman is partially right: The constituents of NY-9 may want to protect their wealth -- but in the same way that a mugging victim wants to protect his. But as a Marxist-socialist limousine liberal Waxman phrases it as if it’s a bad thing, i.e., they’re being selfish and don’t want to “pay their fair share,” blah blah blah.

It’s the same old canard: People vote Republican because they’re stupid or selfish. My liberal Democrat cousin recently called me both. So it’s really no surprise, except this time it’s a Jew talking about other (presumably Democrat-voting) Jews. He’s lashing out because his fellow landsmen are wising up abandoning is hateful party and its failed platform.

Don’t you find it funny, though, that Democrats have all these pet “victim” groups … until, that is, they abandon the Democrat plantation. The Democrats have been perfectly content acting as protectors of American Jews from all the bogeymen of the Republicans. Then, as soon as Jews vote against them, they’re smeared and accused of being stereotypical selfish money grabbers.

That’s the same way they treat blacks: They’re little helpless pets who and the Democrats believe they’re the only ones protecting the welfare of blacks from those raaaaacist Republicans who want them “hanging from a tree.” Until, that is, a black person wises up and leaves the Democrat plantation. Then they’re smeared as stupid Uncle Toms and house slaves.

I’ve also seen them do that to seniors: One minute they’re poor helpless victims of eeeevil Republicans who want to steal their Medicare and Social Security and who want to push them over the cliff, wheelchairs and all. Then, as soon as you see Tea Parties filled with seasoned Americans who don’t want to see their children’s and grandchildren’s lives ruined, the Democrats smear them as selfish, crotchety, angry old people.

This is all done for political gain (= votes) of course. It is quite clear that Democrats don’t give a crap about Jews, blacks, or senior citizens. All they care about is their vote.

Let’s consider this statement. The first part is correct: More Jews are voting against Democrats and will vote against Obama, but the majority will continue to support them. The problem comes in the second part, and an accurate reading teaches us several things.

First, the Democratic Party has taken a sharp turn to the left and much of which passes for “liberalism” nowadays is in fact a radicalism that opposes traditional liberal ideas. American liberalism has never been systematically or doctrinally anti-capitalist, much less anti-American.

There is a vast scam going on that represents the current left’s success in doing what the Communist Party tried to do in the 1930s. That’s why many liberal — and especially Jewish — intellectuals have turned against what’s happening now. Even many of those Democrats and Jews in general who vote for radicals-pretending-to-be-liberals do so with deep doubts.

Hey, Mr. Waxman, I’d love to vote Democrat, but I can’t because your party and president advocate and implement policies that endanger the United States, destroy the economy, create unemployment, and destabilize the world. They also damage Israel’s security, Middle East stability, the struggle against revolutionary Islamism, and even build anti-Israel views and hatred among many American supporters of your side. If you want my vote, get rid of Obama and change your policies.

Instead, what we’re getting is the manipulation of habit and fearmongering to make Jews — and others — think of conservatives and Republicans as a blend of country club antisemite, Nazi storm trooper, and religious fanatic. The administration and its supporters are doing everything possible to spread hate, fear, and arrogant snobbishness toward fellow Americans.

Sunday, June 19, 2011

Ahh, remember the good old days (the 2000's)? Deranged leftists would take to the street by the tens of thousands likening Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, and Rice to Nazis. Radio and TV talk show hosts, newspaper editorialists, university professors, and even prominent Democrat politicians would join in a chorus that called the Bush administration war criminals, terrorists, and imperialists who sent children to die in order to enrich their oil buddies. They called our troops stupid, uneducated, cold-blooded killers, torturers, and likened them to the worst characters in recent world history. At "peace" protests, they burned American flags, hung them upside down, dragged them along the street, and even performed bodily functions upon them.

You might also recall that the slightest criticism of this absolutely detestable and inexcusable was met with, "How dare you question my patriotism!?!?" and "Dissent is the highest form of patriotism!!!" Hillary Clinton, channeling Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn, courageously declared to a screaming crowd, "I am sick and tired of people who say that if you debate and you disagree with this administration somehow you're not patriotic. We should stand up and say we are Americans and we have a right to debate and disagree with any administration!"

Of course, no one was calling unpatriotic those who were legitimately debating and disagreeing with the Bush administration. Just the ones described above. And Hillary knew it.

So, from January 20, 2001 to January 19, 2009 it was verboten to accuse anybody of being unpatriotic or un-American.

Not to worry, folks, because leftists, being the inconsistent result-oriented bunch that they are, have found something for which they can freely accuse others of being un-American: not wanting to pay any more than they already do in taxes.

The most recent case in point. On "Inside Washington" on taxpayer-funded PBS, some leftist drone by the name of Mark Shields declared that the (relatively!) low taxes we have today are "fundamentally un-American."

Noel Sheppard at NewsBusters retorts [emphasis mine]:

Imagine that. People not being taxed more than they currently are is fundamentally un-American.

Would our Founding Fathers agree with Shields's sentiments?

Hardly.

What folks like Franklin, Jefferson, and Madison would say is that almost half of the public not paying taxes while the other half shoulders all the burden is what's un-American.

But liberals like Shields don't see it that way.

For them, taxation is a means to redistribute from those that have to those that don't, a concept our Founding Fathers would have been appalled by.

Of course, one quite imagines Mr. Shields and his accountants do everything in their power to make sure his tax burden is the lowest they can get away with.

I doubt they think that's un-American.

My sentiments exactly.

So let me be among the first to say to Mark the Marxist Shields in all sincerity, "How dare you question my patriotism!?"

Tuesday, March 22, 2011

Last week the detestable Bill Maher accused Republicans of racism (again) by saying:

Every black person scares you unless they look like Urkel, talk like Colin Powell and wear Bill Cosby sweaters.

What doesn’t seem to cross Maher’s race-obsessed liberalism-rotted brain as that usually people who look like Urkel, talk like Powell, and dress like Cosby are not likely to kill, mug, or rape you! It has nothing to do with their color, dimwit! When was the last time Bill Maher hung out alone in a neighborhood dominated by thugs, regardless of color. Would he not be scared? Damn straight he would be.

Black people should go jihad on Bill Maher about his latest rant, but blacks on the Left have no idea when they are being insulted. I hope one day soon that Leftist blacks recognize Maher for what he is: Food for dung beetles. …

When Maher felt that Obama had not acted tough enough in dealing with the BP executives, he suggested that Obama call a meeting with said executives, make his demands, then stand up allowing the BP execs to see the gun that Obama had tucked just above his crotch.

Just in case you missed it: Maher sees black people as thugs.

The “Urkel-looking” sweater-wearing articulate blacks are there for Maher so-called comedic amusement. How can intelligent blacks possibly exist, as we are all supposed to be thugs? Such is the appeal of Obama, the acceptable black for Maher. Maher and his ilk like that Obama “looks smooth,” but might “act black.” …

I am curious as to the last time Maher was shooting pool in Compton? Does he live anywhere near a “non-Urkel” black neighborhood? Would his travels take him anywhere near a “non-Urkel” black neighborhood? Let me put it this way: What blacks is Maher afraid of?

Besides hanging with the occasional street-thug turned rapper superstar in the comfort of his Hollywood set, Maher is more scared of blacks than any Republican. I’d love to see him have his limo driver drop him off in Compton or South Chicago for a pickup basketball game.

Note to Bill Maher: ALL Americans fear black thugs.

If my car breaks down in South Central, and I’m not packing my gun that all blacks carry, guess what? Yep, I would be fearful of black people; not all black people…just the thugs. Black on black crime is very high, and statistically speaking I’m not supposed to collect social security, and the situation I described would not improve my chances.

Note to Bill Maher: ALL Americans fear ALL thugs!

Americans make no distinction on who to fear. The Irish Mafia can make you just as dead as the Italian Mafia. But for people like Maher who sees America in colors, that’s not the case.

Maher seems angry that Republicans tend to hold people to standards. You may not be able to judge a book by its cover, but that doesn’t mean you don’t recognize the uniform of the thug. Thugs don’t act like Urkel, talk like Powell, and wear sweaters like Cosby for the most part. So if Republicans are not scared of this demography of blacks, that lack of fear comes from observation, not racism. …

Here here! It makes so much sense that only a liberal wouldn't understand it.

Friday, November 19, 2010

Thus pronounced Michael Moore in an appearance on "Real Time With Bill Maher." And Maher agreed, "That is the truth."

"The statistics don't lie," Moore plowed ahead. "I'm not talking about polls. I'm talking about that the young people in '08 was the only — do you know this? — it's the only demographic — white demographic — that Obama won, 18- to 29-year-olds. Every other demographic, over 29, Obama lost the white vote. Every single one."

No Democratic presidential candidate has won the "white vote" since 1964.

Add Obama's name to a long list of white Democrats who lost that demographic: Humphrey in 1968, McGovern in 1972, Carter in 1976 and 1980, Mondale in 1984, Dukakis in 1988, Clinton in 1992 and 1996, Gore in 2000. ...

If "white America" dislikes having a black president, why does "white America" — in the South, no less — tolerate a black congressperson?

Friday, October 08, 2010

I knew it would eventually come to this. After the horrible suicide of a number of gay bullying victims, most recently 18-year-old Rutgers student Tyler Clementi, I feared the left would exploit these incidents and turn them into an agenda-pushing opportunity.

And so they did.

Let me state this at the onset so that there is no confusion: I am not trying to minimize the unfortunate deaths of these young gay people. I feel dreadfully sorry for all these victims and their families and wish these suicides were avoided, as any decent human being would. That should go without saying.

But, it is now clear that the left has concocted another "crisis" not to go to waste: Over the past week, Hollywood celebs have come out not only to promote anti-bullying agenda against gays (which, of course, no one would be against) but to pin the blame for these victims' demise squarely on conservatives, Republicans, and any independent person who believes marriage should remain between one man and one woman.

In other words, if you don't support all the things that gays do, then there's no difference between you and the bullies who drove these poor souls to suicide.

Again, I don't mean to minimize these people's deaths or the factors that led to them, but I am calling it as I see it. Naturally, the left wants same-sex marriage, and they're shamelessly using these deaths to push that agenda on the American people by suggesting quite directly that anyone against same-sex marriage is just as guilty as a couple of a-holes who drove their gay bullying victims to suicide. I do not buy it. Nor do I buy for a second that there is a wave of rampant violence and bullying against gays in this country that needs to be confronted at the national level.

(Incidentally, notice that before Clementi's suicidal jump from the George Washington Bridge, the victim du jour was American Muslims. It was only weeks ago when newspapers, magazines, and TV news shows were all abuzz about this non-existent wave of Islamophobia. The same suspects -- conservatives/Republicans -- were unjustifiably fingered -- and, just as in the current scenario, there is not a single right-wing fingerprint to be found on any bit of evidence.)

To add insult to injury, Bozell points out that those Hollywood celebs speaking out against intolerance and bullying have themselves quite a history of intolerance and proclivities toward violence against people they disagree with:

... This could have been a moment of national unity. Almost everyone can tell a story of being the target of bullying or mean-spirited ridicule about being too tall, too short, too fat, too skinny, too dumb, too smart, you name it. But others found this tragedy offered too rich a rhetorical opportunity. It was not a suicide to them. It was a murder.

CNN's "Larry King Live" brought on the antonym of human dignity, Kathy Griffin, who quickly inflamed the Clementi moment by charging "the blood's on their hands" of our "so-called leaders." She insisted, "I think that the way that we had trickle-down economics in the '80s, this is trickle-down homophobia. [???] And I really want people to connect the dots. And that's why I believe there's a connection between Prop. 8; Don't Ask, Don't Tell; and now the string of teen suicides."

Holy smokes. So Ronald Reagan killed him.

Let's put aside that ridiculous "connecting the dots" charge for a second. Larry King should have been asked: Given that Griffin regularly takes to the stage and television to viciously attack other people, is she really the kind of personality that can plausibly pose as the guardian of empathy and the role model for anti-bullying behavior? This year, she made the rounds of talk shows laughing up the controversy she created when she said Sen. Scott Brown's daughters were "prostitutes." One daughter, Arianna, is a freshman at Syracuse University -- the same age as the boy who took his own life. Griffin's even wished violence on people. She recently told a Playgirl magazine writer, "I'd like to push Sarah Palin down the stairs." Now she's CNN's anti-bullying poster child.

But Griffin wasn't alone. Sitting right next to her was lesbian comic Wanda Sykes, who chimed in with her own love taps. "In the laws and everything else that's out here, in the churches that they preach that homophobia (sic) is wrong. You pretty much have given kids permission to disrespect and, you know, and to cause harm to the gay and lesbian community." This is the same "comedian" who "joked" in front of the president that she hoped Rush Limbaugh's kidneys failed and he died. Now, she's on CNN lecturing on bullying.

Then there's Sarah Silverman, another comedian who thrives on shocking and insulting comments. Silverman went on YouTube to lecture the country: "Dear America, When you tell gay Americans that you can't serve their country openly or marry the person that they love, you're telling that to kids, too. So don't be f---ing shocked, wondering where all these bullies are coming from who are torturing young kids and driving them to kill themselves because they're different. They learned it from watching you."

Once again, putting aside the downright stupid accusation that opposing gay marriage is a bullying-and-suicide platform, is Silverman a role model against bullying? At almost the same time her accusatory video piled up more than 200,000 views, Silverman was vomiting this sex "joke" on Twitter: "9/11 widows give the best (sex act)." Can you say cognitive dissonance? She's now lecturing on bullying.

The left has no shame. None. On her satellite radio show, Rosie O'Donnell joined in the same party-line smear: "Well, if the society sanctions bigotry against gay people, how can you expect the children of this society not to ... internalize that? Whether it's Don't Ask, Don't Tell; whether it's gay marriage; (it's) being told by your country that you are not as valuable as your neighbor who's straight." O'Donnell denouncing bullying is akin to Michael Vick denouncing dog fighting. ...

And so on and so on.

Although I am politically conservative, I have plenty of gay friends and have even attended gay marriage ceremonies. Doesn't bother me. What does bother me is the typical leftist tactic of forcing a certain agenda down the nation's throat by blowing a handful of anecdotal tragedies out of proportion to create this us-vs.-them scenario with regard to gays, or Muslims, or whoever the perceived national victim of the week is.

Mr. Bozell is completely correct in pointing out the sheer hypocrisy of the left using its most intolerant spokespeople to lecture the right on tolerance. But what I find most interesting is that we don't even know the political leanings of any of those bullies who drove their gay victims to suicide! Yet conservatives are immediately implicated.

And note these same liberals will witness dozens of radical Islamists shouting Allahu Akbar before blowing up (or trying to) their non-Muslim victims and insist that these are isolated incidents and that there's no particular ideological motivation linking them. It's a perfect example of how political correctness rots the brain.

Decent Americans must refuse to let the left exploit their guilt in order to push their radical leftist agendas.

Thursday, September 16, 2010

“I am opposed to the building of the “mosque” two blocks from Ground Zero. I want it built on Ground Zero.” ... “There is a McDonald’s two blocks from Ground Zero. Trust me, McDonald’s has killed far more people than the terrorists.”

Yes, people. This is the pinnacle of leftist thought: Genocidal religious extremists who preach and practice the bringing of death to humans of all ages and genders is analogous to - nay, not even as terrible as! - a fast-food chain.
Left-wingers, you must be so proud.

Tuesday, May 18, 2010

Like many other sentient Americans, I was absolutely disgusted upon hearing that ASSistant Secretary of State Michael Posner apologized to China—China!—for alleged American human rights violations, most notably the Arizona illegal immigration bill and its “potential discrimination.”

… America has a discrimination problem when a candidate for the U.S. Senate flat out says the American people aren't, “let me be clear,” smart enough to understand legislation that has removed their ability to make their own health care decisions , especially since we read every page of all 7 competing bills long before she opened her fork-tongued mouth.

America has a discrimination problem when freshman (and soon to be unemployed)Congresscriminal Alan Grayson stands in the middle of a family restaurant and screams at his constituents simply because they don't agree with him.

America has a discrimination problem when Senate majority leader Harry Reid (Dickhead, Nevada – but not for long! ) refers to peaceful American citizens exercising their Constitutional right to free speech as “'evil-mongers' using 'lies, innuendo and rumor,' to drown out rational debate .”

America has a discrimination problem when the Wicked Witch of Congress calls these same people Nazis and later admits that she would have no pangs of regret about arresting any one of them who refuses to buy health insurance .

America has a discrimination problem when the men and women who shed blood and relinquish their personal freedom in the service and defense of this country are considered potential “right-wing extremists ” and enemies of the Regime.

America has a discrimination problem when an American citizen supports the head of an Islamic terrorism organization that would prefer that all Jews gather in Israel so he and others don't have to hunt them down to complete a second Holocaust .

America has a discrimination problem when Attorney General Eric Holder and Homeland Security chief Janet Napolitano say on camera they haven't read a bill that enforces their own immigration laws, while endlessly bullying a governor who has decided that if they won't do their jobs she will, while a public school teacher openly advocates revolution against the United States of America and the leftwing media and federal government (I know: there's a difference?) stand by, quiet as church mice.

America has a discrimination problem when the pResident of the United States dismisses a powerful movement of fed up people, who are black and white and young and old and liberal and independent and libertarian and conservative and rich and poor and all persuasions in between, as “folks waving tea bags around ," or, even more representative of the Liar in Chief's “civility,” lovingly demonizes us as “that wing" of the Republican Party, the “tea-baggers.”

America has a discrimination problem when the threat of a boot on the throat is the perfect phrase to describe the people who dangle our nation's future for ransom over a cliff overlooking an abyss.

Absolutely brilliant. May I also add:

America has a discrimination problem when the Democrat-media complex immediately blames confrontations involving police on conservative white Christian males, without having any of the facts. (Remember Skip Gates?)

America has a discrimination problem when the Democrat-media complex immediately blames a terrorist attack (botched or successful) on conservative white Christian males, without having any of the facts.

America has a discrimination problem when its citizens voted for a person to be the leader of the free world not on the basis of his character (of which he has none) but primarily because of his race.

America has a discrimination problem when all its political and media elite do when discussing a prospective cabinet member or SCOTUS nominee is fixate on their gender, race, ethnicity, and/or sexual orientation, rather than whether they are qualified and principled to successfully do the freaking job.

Tuesday, April 27, 2010

There are no depths too low for the Democrat-media complex to sink in order to pursue their agenda. The latest is the shameful comparison between the just and justified rule of law in Arizona to systematic persecution of Jews in Nazi Germany.

I was going to write a full response to this, but Angry White Dude beat me to it:

MAINSTREAM MEDIA INSULTS HOLOCAUST VICTIMS
Tuesday, April 27, 2010

Here are some of the recent mainstream media headlines and comments on Arizona’s new immigration law (h/t Ace of Spades):

How freely liberals throw around comparisons to Nazi Germany when things don’t go there way. When things don’t go there way translates into when something is good for America and it’s citizens. What a tremendous insult to innocent Jewish victims of the socialist German Nazi death machine to the plight of lawbreaking, illegal aliens entering our country and living at great expense on the backs of the American taxpayer. Not to mention the tremendous amount of crime committed at the hands of illegals!

... Let’s examine. Jews in Germany and Poland were productive citizens of both countries. They had their hard-earned possessions stripped from them. They were beaten in the streets and made to wear Stars of David at all times identifying them as Jews. Our police cannot even question people stopped for crimes if they are citizens! Jews were forcefully taken to concentration camps where they were gassed, shot or used in barbaric medical experiments. Six million innocent Jewish men, women and children died horrible deaths. They were treated worse than anything we could imagine. Yet liberals equate the treatment of Jews with illegal aliens!

Illegal aliens break American laws by entering our country without legal permission. Once they are here, our backward laws heap upon them rights and taxpayer aid. We spend untold billions of dollars each year housing, educating, medicating and incarcerating illegal aliens. Areas where they live soon become crime-ridden ghettos. They do not assimilate into American culture. Americans are too often the victims of violent crimes at the hands of these unlawful hordes. Yet liberals continue to compare them to Jews under the Nazis!

Arizona has over 500,000 illegal aliens. The upkeep of those illegals has nearly bankrupt the state. Crime is rampant and Phoenix has become the kidnapping capital of America because of them. It has gone too far and one state decided it was time to do something about it. But liberals are worried about hurting the feelings of lawbreakers who should never be here in the first place! Whose country is it anyway?

None of this would be necessary if the federal government had done its duty. Each President from Clinton to Obama has broken their oath of office by not protecting America’s borders. Who has paid the price? American taxpayers who either pay for illegals and the services they steal and/or those who suffer crime at the hands of violent illegals.

American values are upside down under the fools in Washington who control our country. Our President calls the new Arizona law “misguided.” Who, sir, may I ask, is misguided…the people who must pay for and suffer the consequences of failed immigration enforcement or the tools in Washington who don’t have to suffer living in proximity to these illegals and can only see a future voting bloc? Our country has slipped from a true republic into a system controlled by a ruling class.

Isn’t it sad liberals were only months ago calling the Tea Party movement names and decrying posters that portrayed Hussein Hopenchange as Hitler when Obama’s actions socializing America closely resemble Hitler’s in installing total government control? Liberals are out to destroy America. None of their actions can be portrayed as beneficial to our country. We must fight them at every turn and not tire! Arizona has set an example for all states to follow. I pray Texas will be next or we will soon suffer a wave of crime and expense from the seas of illegals fleeing Arizona.

Thank you, AWD.

When you compare what the state of Arizona is doing to deal with rampant illegal immigration to Nazi Germany, as the Democrat-media complex has done, you are sh*tting on the memory of every one of the six million Jews and millions of others who lost their lives during that dark era of modern history. There is no comparison whatsoever. No comparison.

Wednesday, April 14, 2010

“They’re attractive especially to the Republican Party, which is not known as a party that really does well with the opposite sex. Usually they’re doughy white men and I think they look on Michele Bachmann and, and Sarah Palin, as you know, M.I.L.Fs and I agree, they’re Morons I’d Like to Forget.”

Classy. This is for what passes for enlightened entertainment on the left. Isn’t it easy being a liberal? No actual thought needed, just name-calling. The worst the righty talkers do is maybe make fun of Hillary’s pant suits, but that’s it.

Funny thing is that the same people who find this statement funny probably also believe Hannity and O’Reilly are hate-fests. Yet, you’d never anything remotely hateful, low-brow, or misogynistic on those shows. Because to leftists like Maher, being a conservative/Republican, even a female one, is by default hateful and misogynistic.

Note Maher’s statement about the Republican Party not doing really well with the opposite sex? That’s a typical leftist stereotype that he pulled out of his ass. Like most leftist “facts” and tidbits about conservatives/Republicans.

Also note how Maher stereotypes white males (which, of course, he is exempting himself from because he’s a liberal Democrat white male: “doughy white men.” If he were calling black men big-lipped pants-to-the-ground drug dealer thugs—or black women “nappy-headed hos”!—Maher would be looking for a new job right now.

He’s just not funny. He’s just an a-hole. An unfunny and offensive a-hole

But remember: It’s the right that’s hateful, vitriolic, bigoted, and misogynistic.

In seven years as the Garden State’s pugnacious U.S. Attorney, Christie got only two death threats -- from the bloods and the crips.

It took only three months as governor for an adversary to wish him six feet under.

“To have the leader of the Bergen County Teachers Union send out an e-mail to their 17,000 members asking them to pray for my death I think just goes beyond the pale,” Christie said. …

Christie got a swift apology.

“While it was intended as a joke I recognize that it was in poor taste, bad taste and was definitely an error of poor judgment and I sincerely apologize to the governor,” Coppola said.

Even still, in an era where the littlest statement or action of a conservative/ Republican is perceived by the hysterical Left as extremist, dangerous, or “inciting violence,” this guy doesn’t even think for a second that such a “joke” is a bad idea?

Besides, I don’t think he meant it as a joke—that is, as a joke that people other than BCTU members would find funny. I don’t know who informed Christie of the letter, but I’m sure Coppola’s was forced to apologize. In other words, it’s the typical “I’m sorry I got caught” bit, because if he didn’t get caught, he wouldn’t be sorry. Or why else would he have written such an inappropriate statement?

What if this were a conservative/Republican writing this about a liberal/Democrat? You think (1) this wouldn’t be front-page national MSM news and (2) there wouldn’t be demands for this guy’s resignation?

Sunday, January 17, 2010

Last week after the earthquake occurred in Haiti, evangelical minister Pat Robertson said it happened because Haiti "made a pact with the devil." What can one say? It was hateful, stupid, and in no way aligned with the mentality of a mainstream conservative.

But then Robertson was outdone by Danny Glover - the one of Hollywood's most left-wing, communism-loving actors - went on a radio show and blamed the earthquake on the nation's not signing a climate deal in Copenhagen.

Friday, January 01, 2010

A couple days ago I got in trouble with two Obama-loving (and Jewish) Facebook friends for calling their President Golden Calf “the worst president in American history.” They accused me of being petulant, partisan, vapid, and having gone off the deep end.

I disagreed, explaining that if anyone was those things, it was Obama himself. I also pointed out that I was far from the only one severely disappointed with the current president and his administration. Obama’s approval rating teetered around 50% since mid-July and has stayed below that since mid-November.

But if anybody wonders why so many Americans disapprove of President Hope&Change’s performance, Victor Davis Hanson counts the ways in a December 23 article …

Constant apologies abroad for everything from slavery to Hiroshima

Bows to Saudi royalty, the Japanese emperor, and Chinese autocrats

The on-again/off-again Guantanamo shut-down mess

The fight with the former CIA directors

The public show trial of Khalid Sheik Mohammed

The reach out to Ahmadinejad Castro, Chavez, and assorted thugs

The Honduras fiasco

Czars everywhere

The serial “Bush did it”/reset whine abroad

The Queen of England/I-pod fiasco

Gordon Brown gets snookered in his gift-giving

Unceremoniously shipping back the Churchill bust

The end of the special relationship with the UK

The New York on-the-town presidential splurge

Anita Dunn and her Mao worship

Timothy Geithner/Tom Daschle/Hilda Solis and their taxes

What ever happened to Gov. Richardson?

“No lobbyists” = gads of them

The Podestas’ insider influence-peddling empire

Sotomayor’s “wise Latina” chauvinism

The Special Olympics silly quip

Trashing Nancy Reagan

The Skip Gates/police acting “stupidly” mess

The get-Chicago-the-Olympics jaunt to Copenhagen

Cap-and-trade boondoggle

“Millions of green jobs”

Ignore gas, oil, coal, and nuclear power production

Cash-for-clunkers

The Joe Biden gaffe machine

Jobs “saved” or “created” rather than references to the actual unemployment rates

Van Jones, the racist and truther

Desiree Rogers won’t testify

The blowback from, and silence about, the Rangel/Dodd corruption

The White House party crashers plan to take the 5th Amendment

The ‘bipartisanship’ con

The pork-barrel stimulus spoils

The demonization of the Town-Hallers

The Acorn Mess

The Kevin Jennings/Safe School Czar embarrassment

The SEIU direct access to the White House

The Asian Tour comedown

The politicization of the take-over of GM and Chrysler

The Obama readjustment in the order of paying back car creditors

Car dealerships closed on shaky criteria

Obama as “Caesar”

The Emanuel “never let a serious crisis go to waste” boast

The Black Caucus/Rangel/Waters bid to bail out the inner-city radio stations

Yosi Sergant and the NEA

$1.7 trillion deficit

The planned $9 trillion added to the national debt

New income tax rates; health care surcharge talk; and payroll tax caps to be lifted

Rahm Emanuel’s promised payback to those states that trash the stimulus

Whew! That’s a lot of screw-ups for less than one year in the presidency. One might even say it’s the resume of the worst president in American history (or at least in the past 150 years; a history-buff friend reminds me that Andrew Jackson was a real bastard.)

What I find interesting about this list, which VDH points out isn’t even exhaustive, is how dutifully the mainstream media systematically whitewashed the scandals, missteps, gaffes, and lapses in judgment. Basically, unless you are a regular follower of Fox News or the conservative radio and/or internet circuit, you are likely to even be aware of most of the items on this list. (Yet there are those out there who know every tiny sordid tidbit involving Sarah Palin, whether it’s true or not.) Isn’t that pathetic?

Seriously, show this list to any liberal/Democrat and I would guess that they wouldn’t have heard of at least two-thirds of the items therein. (I’d test that theory myself, but I get the sinking suspicion that no liberal/Democrat friend of mine would read through a mere few items. At that point they’d accuse me of being petulant, partisan, mean-spirited, and making up lies to smear “the black man in the White House,” and then walk off in a huff. Like being confronted with the man-made global warming climate change hoax, they wouldn’t be able to handle the cold hard facts in front of them. As Ann Coulter has said, “The truth cannot be delivered with Novocaine.”)

VDH wasn’t done. Here is his analysis of Obama’s Nobel prize speech:

I listened to it this morning quite early and posted at NRO. Bottom line: an academic sermon on peace/war with the now accustomed Obama characteristics:

1) long again (4,000 words);
2) “I” or “me” 34 times: same old self referencing;
3) the inadvertent cosmic arrogance [“I do not bring with me today a definitive solution to the problems of war.” = you think?];
4) straw men trope: some say this; others say that; but I uniquely say …;
5) reference to my own personal inspirational story;
6) trash my predecessor or his policies;
7) end with hopey/changey cadences.

That was pretty much it — a pulpit exegesis that could have been cut to 500 words. I would have done the speech in 10 minutes and used the extra time to have lunch with poor neglected King Harald. (Second recommendation: Obama should try to hire some speech-writers over 40. There are a lot of old pro Democrat wordsmiths around that might come in and offer something new other than the now tired boilerplate.)

Yup. You wanted hope and change? You got it. Ready for (at least!) three more years of this?

Friday, December 25, 2009

On this glorious brisk Christmas morning, Loud Lion so graciously pounded this installment of the (quasi-)Weekly Roar. (He kind of had to; we’re at the sitting at the same table right across from each other.)

What I want this Holiday Season

‘Tis the season to make lists, lists of the best, lists of the worst, lists of lists.

Speaking of which, I happen to be reading my local newspaper, the New York Daily News, and they had a list of the years worst parents, and in this list was the liberals’ newest and favorite punching bag, Sarah Palin.

Now, how did Sarah Palin get this wonderful distinction along side such upstanding parental units like, “Balloon Dad”, “OctoMom” and John & Kate? Well, it seems in an interview Levi Johnston said he “overheard” Sarah Palin call her Downs Syndrome child Trig, her retarded baby. Firstly, anyone who has watches Sarah Palin with her children, or read her book could tell that this is absurd. Anyone with a sense of a brain can tell that Levi Johnston is a publicity hound, looking for an extension of his 15 minutes of fame.

Well, my list of the year is people who need to fade away. So, congrats Mr. Johnston, you like your child’s grandmother, are on a List for 2009.

Second on my list, and number one in my heart is Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi. What can we say that can convey my utter contempt for a woman who is so willing to strip citizens of their freedom that she is willing to throw the nation under the bus?

Third, because they go hand in hand, is Senator Harry Reid. A nation that loudly screams that they do not want government control health care, yet he pushes it through anyway.

Fourth would be President Obama. When over 40% of people polled say they would rather have President George W. Bush back as president over President Obama, well, you know that I am not the only one who has Barry on their list.

Fifth, is the not-so-distinguished Senator from Minnesota. The rules of the Senate are that you have 10 minutes to speak, and that you are allowed additional time if asked for and granted by the President of the Senate. Well, Stuart Smalley was President Pro Tem one day while Senator Lieberman was speaking on the floor. His 10 minutes were up, and Stuart informed him of this, and as right, Senator Lieberman asked for additional time to finish up. Stewie refused him.

In the history of the United States a Senator has never been refused extra time to finish … NEVER.

Sixth would be television personalities of MSNBC. I could list them and make them #6 through #10 and list plenty of reasons why they need to go away. But you know what? Why give them the satisfaction of listing the reasons and continuing to talk about them? So, just like their ratings show, we will just ignore them.

Seventh would be John and Kate, just because they are on every bad thing of 2009 list.

Eighth is Albert Gore, Jr. His refusal to admit that maybe Global Warming might not be what he has been screaming about shows his limited vision of the world we all live in. Admitting that pushing the Global Warming and carbon offest is beneficial to his bottom line would go far in peoples view on Fat Albert and his pushing a radical view.

Monday, December 21, 2009

Instead of joining us on the right side of history, all the Republicans can come up with is, ‘slow down, stop everything, let’s start over.’ If you think you’ve heard these same excuses before, you’re right. When this country belatedly recognized the wrongs of slavery, there were those who dug in their heels and said ‘slow down, it’s too early, things aren’t bad enough. When women spoke up for the right to speak up, they wanted to vote, some insisted they simply, slow down, there will be a better day to do that, today isn’t quite right. When this body was on the verge of guaranteeing equal civil rights to everyone regardless of the color of their skin, some senators resorted to the same filibuster threats that we hear today.

— Sen. Harry Reid (D-NV), December 7, 2009

“Voting ‘no’ and hiding from the vote are the same result. Those of us on the floor see it. It was clear the three of them who did not cast their yes votes until all 60 Senate votes had been tallied and it was clear that the result was a foregone conclusion. And why? Why all this discord and discourtesy, all this unprecedented destructive action? All to break the momentum of our new young president.

They are desperate to break this president. They have ardent supporters who are nearly hysterical at the very election of President Barack Obama. The birthers, the fanatics, the people running around in right-wing militia and Aryan support groups, it is unbearable to them that President Barack Obama should exist. That is one powerful reason. It is not the only one.”

— Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse (D-RI), December 21, 2009

Yup. This is how Democrats debate an issue: When your opponents disagree with you, call them racists and/or Nazis.

So in the mind of idiots like Harry Reid, those who filibuster (or threaten to do so) are akin to those who didn’t want slavery to end, women to vote, and minorities to have civil rights? Harry Reid, either himself ignorant of history or hoping the American people are, apparently doesn’t know that the persons who filibustered the Civil Rights Acts of 1957 and 1964 were Democrats. One of them—Robert Byrd (D-WV) sits in the Senate to this day! Who prevented slavery from being stopped? Democrats! By why let historical record get in the way of your selfish political agenda?

Reid also doesn’t know that the Senate is not supposed to move fast on legislation. James Madison conceived of it as an anchor, acting to slow government down. But Harry Reid probably never even heard of James Madison.

What about the filibuster of George W. Bush’s nomination of black female judge Janice Rogers Brown to the U.S. Appeals Court for the District of Columbia? That was carried out by Democrats too. Guess those racist Democrat friends of Harry Reid and Sheldon Whitehouse just couldn’t stand having a black woman preside over a courtroom. And when Republican Bill Frist tried to stop Democrat filibustering on Bush’s judicial nominations, guess who was there to get on his smarmy little soapbox with his smarmy little voice? You guessed it:

Democrats are refusing to forgo filibusters and say they will fight any effort by Frist to act unilaterally to end them for judicial nominations. They warn that it could poison the well for bipartisan cooperation on other issues in the upcoming Congress.

“If they, for whatever reason, decide to do this, it's not only wrong, they will rue the day they did it, because we will do whatever we can do to strike back,” incoming Senate Democratic leader Harry M. Reid (Nev.) said last week. “I know procedures around here. And I know that there will still be Senate business conducted. But I will, for lack of a better word, screw things up.”

But the most disgusting thing about comparing slavery, civil rights, and women’s suffrage to this health (s)care bill is that they are in fact incomparable. As Law Professor Stephen Bainbridge explains on his blog:

[H]ealth care legislation is fundamentally different than slavery and civil rights. In the latter, we are dealing with negative rights. Health care—to the extent it is meaningful at all to talk about it in rights terms—is a positive right. Reid’s thus comparing apples and oranges. The crusades against slavery and for civil rights were about freedom. Obamacare is about mandates, expanded government, higher taxes, and larger deficits. “The men who wrote the Bill of Rights were not concerned that government might do too little for the people but that it might do too much to them.” Jackson v. City of Joliet, 715 F.2d 1200, 1203 (7th Cir. 1983) (Posner, C.J.). Me too. Sadly, it’s not a concern Senator Reid shares.

Finally, in 1919 nearly twice as many SenateRepublicans (36) voted for women’s suffrage than did Democrats (20) and over twice as many Democrats (17) opposed it than Republicans (8).

So Harry Reid is either a dimwit or a libeling mud-slinger.

Whitehouse’s libelous comment is just as bad. Does it ever occur to this power-hungry ideologue that Senate Republicans—and a vast majority of the American people—simply don’t want the federal government engaging in an unconstitutional, fascist, liberty-destroying, wealth-stealing, and life-threatening takeover of one sixth of the U.S. economy? I really don’t think it does.

Nope. In their sick liberal universe, all opponents of liberal Democrats are simply for drowning kittens and puppies, keeping women and minorities down, and having a temper tantrum that a black man is in the White House.

These are the mental midgets who will soon have your income and your very life in their unworthy hands.

Monday, December 07, 2009

On November 22, Frank Rich had this to say about the attendees of Sarah Palin book signings [via TimesWatch]:

“That demographic is white and non-urban: Just look at the stops and the faces on her carefully calibrated book tour. The affect is emotional — the angry air of grievance that emerged first at her campaign rallies in 2008, with their shrieked threats to Obama, and that has since resurfaced in the Hitler-fixated ‘tea party’ movement (which she endorses in her book)....Palin is at the red-hot center of age-old American resentments that have boiled up both from the ascent of our first black president and from the intractability of the Great Recession for those Americans who haven’t benefited from bailouts.”

— Columnist Frank Rich on Sarah Palin’s fans, November 22.

There are so many thoughts in my head right now about this pathetic hateful leftist hack with a word processor that I don't know where to begin. Seriously, I don't think there is an iota of truth, fact, or reality in this excerpt. OK, let's try to parse this line by despicable line:

1. White and non-urban. Translation: Racist rednecks. Just another instance of a liberal ideologue looking only at skin color and not content of character. As I wrote earlier in the fall, the attendance at my synagogue is all white and non-urban, a "sea of white people." Guess my congregation is just a bunch of racist rednecks.

2. The affect is emotional. Oh yeah, because Obama speeches with the freaking tears rolling down fans' cheeks is not emotional, right? Democrat politicians screaming to some audience of robots that unless you elect them, 500 million people a year are going to die due to lack of health insurance, the entire economy is going to collapse if we don't pass this Democrat slush fund called the "stimulus bill" tomorrow, the world is going to boil over in 3 months unless we turn our lives upside-down to stop global warming, our "moral standing" in the world is being damaged by Republican strategies in the war on terror, black churches are going to burn because America is a racist country, and millions of Americans are going to go poor and starving unless government does something to regulate those greedy corporate executives. These, according to Frank Rich — who according to his own writings agrees wholeheartedly with everyone of these ridiculous sentiments — are not emotional.

Oh, and it should be effect, Mr. Rich, not affect. Free Republic reader "afraidfortherepublic" noticed this too and says, "I’ll betcha Sarah knows the difference. Frank Rich needs to go back to school."

3. Angry air of grievance. Not like those feel-good liberal gatherings you love, right, Mr. Rich? Those "Free abortion on demand!" rallies, "End the occupation!" rallies, "No blood for-oil! rallies, "Raise the minimum wage!" rallies, "Habeas corpus rights for terrorists!" rallies, "Free Mumia!" rallies, "George W. Bush is the world's biggest terrorist!" rallies, "9/11 was an inside job!" rallies, and "Try Bush and Cheney for war crimes!" rallies? No angry air or grievance there, according to Frank Rich. But when Sarah Palin fans gather to demand our liberty, property, income, and Constitution back, it has an aaaangry aaaair of griieeeevance!

4. Shrieked threats to Obama ... Hitler-fixed 'tea party' movement. Rich is undoubtedly referring to one liberal reporter's claim of having heard "Kill Him" and "Terrorist" at a Sarah Palin rally last fall. A claim that was never corroborated by a single other attending reporter or rally participant.

5. Hitler-fixed 'tea party' movement. Rich is undoubtedly referring to one—uno—instance of a person holding a swastika with a slash through it at one Tea Party. If this is all it takes for Frank Rich to label an entire movement as Hitler-fixated, I wonder what rock he was sleeping under when this was taking place from 2001-2008.

How easy it must be to be a NY Times writer. Who needs intellectual honesty when you can just spout overblown and/or unsubstantiated liberal talking points?

6. Palin is at the red-hot center of age-old American resentments that have boiled up both from the ascent of our first black president. Palin isn't at the red-hot center of any resentments, you schmuck. By contrast, your butt buddy Barack Obama is at the red-hot center of age-old anti-American resentments. And the oft-repeated but not once substantiated claim that the tea party movement (which is aimed more at Congress than at Obama) resents having a black president is getting old and simply highlights Frank Rich's intellectual laziness and unprofessionalism.

7. the intractability of the Great Recession for those Americans who haven’t benefited from bailouts. This statement is wrong in three significant ways. First, it's only called the "Great Recession" because liberal hacks like Rich want it too appear to the American people worse than it really was at the time of its coining (i.e., right around the end of George W. Bush's presidency and the beginning of Obama's). The truth is the recession wouldn't have been so "great" if the Marxist-socialist in chief and his Marxist-socialist-dominated Congress didn't worsen and prolong the recession by enacting the most irresponsible economic policies since LBJ's Great Society scheme.

Second, it is safe to say that except for government hacks, virtually no one as benefited from bailouts. Banks are still not lending, GM is still reeling, and businesses are still not hiring. For Rich to even assume the premise that there are actually beneficiaries of bailouts makes him look even more ignorant.

Finally, Rich makes the assumption that those present at Sarah Palin book signings are among those who -- unlike people who are not at Palin fans ostensibly -- didn't get their expected piece of the bailout pie. Not only is this assumption completely unsupportable, but it shows how much Rich does not understand the values of real conservative America. He lives in this liberal bubble in a windowed office in Manhattan waxing eloquent about how white and racist and angry and Hitler-obsessed middle Americans are. If Palin fans or any conservatives are angry about the bailouts it's not because they didn't get their piece of the pie; they don't want a handout from government, and they didn't want the government — under Bush or Obama — to recklessly and irresponsibly pass these bailouts as they did.

In short, this one paragraph from one of the NY Times' treasured editorialists is an open window into the ignorant, hateful, and intolerant mind of the left.

Tuesday, November 10, 2009

How do we know when someone like [Ft. Hood shooter] Hasan is going to make his move and do we know he’s an Islamist until he’s made his move? ... Apparently he tried to contact al Qaeda. Is that the point at which you say, ‘This guy is dangerous?’ That’s not a crime to call up al Qaeda, is it? Is it? I mean, where do you stop the guy?”

Actually, Matthews’s question is legitimate if you interpret it like this: It’s not a crime now, under the Obama administration to call up al Qaeda. We know it was under the Bush administration, with the enactment of the Patriot Act.

Is the Patriot Act still in effect? Or did that go by the wayside like so many other terrorism-thwarting tactics the Obama got rid of?

I don't know if Army chief of staff Gen. George Casey is a liberal, but he sure talks like one:

Our diversity, not only in our Army but in our country, is a strength. And as horrific as this tragedy was, if our diversity becomes a casualty, I think that's worse.

— Army chief of staff Gen. George Casey on NBC’s “Meet the Press” with David Gregory, November 7, 2009

Do you understand what this man is saying? He is saying that the loss of “diversity”—the feel-good, meaningless, superficial, and artificial practice of ensuring that a given group has x number of whites, blacks, men, women, Christians, Jews, Muslims, gays, etc., etc.—is worse than 13 people’s lives violently snuffed out in cold blood by a radical fanatic. In short, protecting a politically correct sacred cow is more important than protecting human life.

Take that in. Because it is the reason this massacre was allowed to occur.

Where are we as a society when even leaders in our military have admitted that ideology trumps human life?

What’s almost as disgusting is the tables being turned on the U.S. military and the American people by means of a completely unsupportable premise that the first thing that came to Americans’ minds following the massacre is something to the effect of, “That’s it, all Muslims out of the military. Let’s get back to basics here: White Christian men only!” This is insulting and unfortunately all too prominent in the thinking of the politically correct—including General Casey himself!

David Limbaugh puts it well in his latest article, “Suicidal Political Correctness”:

Even as more and more realize oppressive political correctness is damaging our nation and killing our people, we still hold ourselves hostage to it. We can’t criticize Obama on his policy agenda without absurd accusations of racism, and now our authorities’ first instinct after the mass murder at Fort Hood is to victimize the identified shooter—Maj. Nidal Malik Hasan—rather than to protect our soldiers. …

I’m not sure I believe Casey is more concerned about the ethnic or religious composition of our armed forces or overblown threats to it than the actual murder of its innocent soldiers. I doubt he would express similar concerns in private, but I would be more concerned about the state of our officer corps if he did than if he didn’t.

Does anyone really think we’re going to discriminate against or expel Muslims from the service as a result of these murders? On the other hand, doesn’t the safety of innocent soldiers and our national defense demand that we get to the bottom of why such an obviously radical Islamist was not purged from our ranks and whether inflated diversity concerns handcuffed us and, at least indirectly, led to these murders?

Exactly. Everyone seems to be so concerned about this massacre causing Americans—always on the verge of rampant intolerance and bigotry—to want to abdicate “diversity” or lead a backlash against Muslim soldiers. (Speaking of diversity, is anyone going to address that this Muslim fundamentalist refused to associate with women? Or does that clash too much with the liberal template that it’s only us Americans who are intolerant?)

This backward thinking will never solve the problem and will only result in more lost lives.

This massacre happened because the American people, the U.S. military, and the FBI—which willfully dropped the ball on this Hasan guy—were too tolerant. Only in this country does a radical fanatic carry out an act of terror (or whatever you want to call it) and then we are guilted into looking within ourselves and at our past actions to figure out why it happened. It’s like we learned nothing from 9/11.

There’s a bumper sticker that defines a liberal as “someone who’s so open-minded, their brains have fallen out.” That Hasan wasn’t preempted despite his documentable radical Islamic thoughts and ties is the textbook example of this. Thirteen innocent people, including a pregnant woman and her unborn child, were the casualties of brainless politically correct liberalism.

That this alternate-universe thinking has infiltrated our own military makes it very hard for this father of two young children to sleep at night.